The Wi-Fi Cameras are Coming

Vcullen writes "This week will see many 'new' digicams released at CES but few will be more than cosmetic tweaks and updates on current models. However Kodak have just announced something new (for them) - a Wi-Fi enabled digital camera that enables online photo sharing and viewing without the need for a computer. It also has 256MB of internal memory and stores up to 1500 images." Of course, to actually get on a wireless network, a special card is required for the camera, and the firmware has yet to support WEP, so one has to wait until a Q3 2005 update to join most authenticated networks.

Hardly a first

[redback]

canon already have wireless adapters for their high end cameras

hardly a first

Re:1500 images?

[imsabbel]

150 kbyte is plenty for a normal screen res photo (xga) if you dont happen to photograph a newspager or a resolution chart.
So postage stamp is a bit of an exegeration.
O

the best web camera DOES run Linux!!

[Anonymous Coward]

and, it's been around for a while, AND has ALWAYS had WiFi ... and you won't believe what this multisession, multiuser camera can do. Too bad they don't have the marketing clout the Big Boyz do, but that is how it goes I guess. I don't know what I would do without the six I have... exactly what was needed and still going great http://www.iqeye.com

Re:1500 images?

[LiquidCoooled]

ahem, its the online picture service:

"..people can upload the pictures and videos for near instantaneous electronic sharing with friends around the world.

On-the-spot sharing of up to 1,500 favorite pictures, synchronized with a person's PC-based picture collection..."

The camera itself has 256mb of memory, so it will fit a reasonable amount of pictures on, you choose your favorites and upload them to kodak.

You can then steer your family and friends and anyone interested to the site - instantly, certainly cuts out the initial middlestep.

Not a bad idea if you ask me, its like iTunes and the iPod in reverse.

Re:Why is this better than a cellphone?

[mboverload]

becuause the cameras in phones suck.

The aperature is too damn small, everything comes out grainy, blured, and the quality is just plain crappy.

nothing to see here

[Maskirovka]

The EASYSHARE-ONE redefines what is possible with a digital camera

Consumer camera yes, but Kodak is hardly the first to wifi in a digital camera [nikonusa.com].

Except for professionals. And maybe consumers too

[aardvarko]

photos can run upwards of 15-20MB/photo in RAW, this would be a photojournalists/sports photographer's dream not to have to switch out cards every 50 or 80 pictures.

Yeah, except that photojournalists and ESPECIALLY sports photographers can't shoot RAW because of the additional delays in processing (much easier to FTP JPEGs directly to the photo department, and most prepress deadlines occur DURING night games - and there's far more overhead than just prepress); besides, no sane photojournalist would trust a single point of failure for storing photographs. Many newspaper photogs use 256MB cards, for the simple reason that if one fails or its contents are corrupted (no time for Image Rescue or its ilk), you only lose a hundred JPEGs, rather than multiple gigabytes' worth of assignments.

As has been noted by other commenters, the Nikon D2H has supported WiFi transmission since its release, given the optional $400 adapter. It FTPs directly, and supports WEP and whatnot. The only interesting thing about this article is the consumer orientation; personally, I don't see people accepting the dramatic reductions in battery life... not to mention the storage issues...

Re:Too easy.

[shoolz]

Excellent point. I've protested (peacfully) at various events where I couldn't take photos of those who were physically assaulting me because i knew my camera would be smashed to smithereens as soon as they saw the flash.

This idea would allow me to take photos instead of beatings.

Megapixels are a dumb consumer selling point.

[i41Overlord]

i just recently saw one with a 2 mega pixel camera in it, and i'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see great quality 4 mega pixel cameraphones (4 megapixels seems to be the break point for cheapish snapshot digital photos).

The megapixel count seems to be the big selling point to uneducated consumers. They think that the more megapixels, the better the camera. But in actuality the quality of the picture doesn't usually depend on the pixel count. You can have a crappy lens and a 99 megapixel sensor behind it, and you're going to get a very big blurry, distorted picture. Also, if the sensor is not a very good one, you'll get a picture made of a lot of washed out pixels.

Take an older high end camera where they put effort into giving it a quality lens and quality sensor and compare it to a heavily marketed modern camera with lots o' megapixels. The difference in picture quality will speak for itself. There are lots of 5 mp cameras nowadays, but lots of them still take crappy pictures. They're just BIG crappy pictures.

Re:Megapixels are a dumb consumer selling point.

[brunogirin]

Indeed. Which is exactly why people still use SLR cameras (digital or film) and medium format ones. Because the optics on those are just astounding compared to compact cameras. If you want a good picture, you need good optics first, whether you're using film or digital.

So the first advice I always give to friends buying a camera is to check what the specs of the optics are. More often than not, this is also the reason for a significant difference in price between cameras that are otherwise identical. But the point is investing in a good lens is actually worth it, if you want to take good sharp pictures. And sometimes "worth it" can means a lot of money. For instance, the telephoto zoom I have on my SLR costs about £160 in the UK. The professional equivalent I am currently considering upgrading to costs £1200. But it would be worth it in terms of quality.